Rajveer Singh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6070 MP

                                1
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       MCRC-18696-2022
               Rajveer Singh Jatav Vs. State of MP

Gwalior, Dated: 25.04.2022

       Shri Ram Kishor Sharma, Counsel for the applicant.

       Shri P.P.S. Vajeeta, Counsel for the State.

       Case Diary is available.

       This second application under Section 439 of CrPC has been

filed for grant of bail.

       The applicant has been arrested 14.02.2022 in connection with

Crime No.494/2012 registered at Police Station - Dehat, Distt. Bhind

for offence under Section 392 of IPC, Section 25/27 of Arms Act and

Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

       It is submitted by Shri Sharma that this is a repeat application

for grant of bail. First application of the applicant was dismissed by

order dated 08.03.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.10793/2022 with an

observation that the applicant has been produced after 10 years on

execution of production warrant as he was in jail in connection with

some other offence and Test Identification Parade has not been

conducted and supplementary charge-sheet has also not been filed.

       It is submitted that now charges have been framed against the

applicant. There is no evidence against the applicant except the

confessional statement made by the co-accused under Section 27 of

the Evidence Act.

       Accordingly, Shri Vajeeta was directed to explain as to why the
                                2
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      MCRC-18696-2022
              Rajveer Singh Jatav Vs. State of MP

Test Identification Parade of the applicant has not been conducted.

      It was replied by Shri Vajeeta that although a letter has been

written to the Tahsildar, but he has not given any date for holding the

Test Identification Parade. On further query, it was pointed out by

Shri Vajeeta that the letter has been written yesterday only. Therefore,

Shri Vajeeta was directed to explain as to why the police was

sleeping over the matter and why they did not try to hold the Test

Identification Parade at the earliest in spite of the fact that the first

application of the applicant was rejected only on this ground on

08.03.2022

, then Shri Vajeeta replied that SHO, Police Station Dehat

Kotwali, District Bhind would reply the same. Accordingly, Shri

Rambabu Singh Yadav, SHO Dehat Kotwali, District Bhind, who was

outside the Court, was called by the State Counsel.

It is submitted by Shri Rambabu Singh that in fact, the

applicant was not arrested and he was produced in execution of

production warrant and now this matter has come to his cognizance

that the Test Identification Parade has not been conducted and,

accordingly, on 24.04.2022 a letter has been sent to the Tahsildar,

Bhind and Test Identification Parade would be conducted.

Reply given by Shri Rambabu Singh was shocking. He was not

ready to understand the implication of his submission that "now the

matter has come to his cognizance". First of all, this Court is unable

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-18696-2022 Rajveer Singh Jatav Vs. State of MP

to understand the meaning of "cognizance" in the language of the

Investigating Officer. However, when a specific question was put to

Shri Rambabu Singh as to when he came to know about the fact that

the applicant is lodged in different jail, then he submitted that on a

departmental letter issued by the Director General of Police, State of

MP, Bhopal regarding execution of all pending warrants of arrest, a

drive has been initiated and only in compliance of said drive,

whereabouts of the applicant came to his knowledge and,

accordingly, production warrant was issued by the Court. He fairly

conceded that issuance of departmental letter by the Director General

of Police, is in compliance of the order passed by this Court.

Be that whatever it may.

Since Shri Rambabu Singh Yaddav, SHO is not ready to

understand the meaning of production warrant, then he was

specifically asked as to whether the production warrant was issued on

the application made by the police or by the co-accused, then he

fairly conceded that the application for issuance of production

warrant was made by the police. He also stated that in the month of

December, 2021 he had come to know that the applicant is detained

in different jail. Thereafter, again Shri Rambabu Singh was not ready

to understand the meaning of production warrant, then again a

specific question was put to him as to whether the accused was

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-18696-2022 Rajveer Singh Jatav Vs. State of MP

produced by the police in execution of the production warrant or not,

then he fairly conceded that the accused was produced by the police

in execution of production warrant. However, he maintained that

since the charge-sheet against the applicant under Section 299 of

CrPC was filed, therefore, there was no need to file any

supplementary charge-sheet. Accordingly, Shri Rambabu Singh was

asked with regard to the admissibility of confessional statement made

by the accused thereby disclosing the name of the co-accused. With

great hesitation, it was submitted by Shri Rambabu Singh that the

said information given by the co-accused is not admissible and he

fairly conceded that after the arrest or production of the applicant

before the Trial Court, further investigation with regard to the

identification was necessary, which was not done.

Initially, reply was given by Shri Rambabu Singh that only

now it has come to his cognizance that the Test Identification Parade

is necessary as the applicant has been arrested. Specific question was

put to him that when the applicant had filed an application for grant

of bail before the Sessions Court, then whether the case diary was

produced before the Trial Court or not, then it was fairly conceded

that the police case diary was submitted along with the Kafiyat sent

by him. Thus, it is clear that the SHO, Police Station Dehat Kotwali

District Bhind was aware of each and everything, but still he was

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-18696-2022 Rajveer Singh Jatav Vs. State of MP

sitting tight over the matter. That shows a lack of legal knowledge as

well as lack of efficiency on the part of SHO. This Court is regularly

observing that the police is filing the charge-sheet only on the basis

of confessional statement made by the accused persons without

making any effort to collect any substantive evidence against them.

On earlier occasion also, this Court had marked the orders to the

Director General of Police to take corrective measures in the matter,

but the things have not improved and, therefore, it is clear that at

least Shri Rambabu Singh, SHO, requires an immediate training of

law as well as manner of investigation.

Accordingly, the Director General of Police, State of MP,

Bhopal is directed to immediately send Shri Rambabu Singh Yadav,

SHO Police Station Dehat Kotwali, District Bhind for a police

training to learn the law as well as the manner of investigation.

Training must be of at least six months and not less than that. The

training shall be conducted in any PTS of the choice of Director

General of Police. The Director General of Police, State of MP,

Bhopal is also directed to submit his report before the Principal

Registrar of this Court within a period of 15 days.

So far as the present case is concerned, it is true that the

offence was committed in the year 2012 and the applicant has been

produced before the Trial Court in execution of production warrant,

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-18696-2022 Rajveer Singh Jatav Vs. State of MP

but there is no substantive admissible evidence against the applicant

and nothing has been recovered from him. Under these

circumstances, this Court is left with no other option but to grant bail

to the applicant. Since the applicant is the resident of Dholpur

(Rajasthan) and it appears that he has a criminal history and three

criminal cases have been registered against him and he was detained

in jail in connection with some other criminal case, therefore, he

cannot be released on bail except on furnishing stringent condition.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the

application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be

released on bail on furnishing cash surety of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees

One Lac Fifty Thousand) to the satisfaction of the Trial

Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given

by the concerned Court.

This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case

of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

It is made clear that single default in appearance before the

Trial Court, or in case of registration of new offence, this bail order

shall automatically come to an end and the cash surety so furnished

by the applicant shall automatically stand forfeited without any

reference to the Court.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-18696-2022 Rajveer Singh Jatav Vs. State of MP

the case of Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on

18.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation

regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.

Let a copy of this order be given to Shri Vajeeta for

communicating the same to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind latest

by tomorrow, who in his turn, shall immediately communicate to the

Director General of Police, State of MP, Bhopal for necessary

information and compliance.

CC as per rules.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge

Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.04.25 19:06:15 +05'30'